Problem Facing When Taking Picture!!

[tsfatt]

Dear all, I wonder whether someone facing same problem I facing ...

Problem 1;
I find that difficult to get a good shoot on my daughter when she having performance on stage ( sometime on hall, sometime on basketball field .. ) ...

1st I thought kit lens is the problem (mine is 18-135mm).. due to Aperture not big enough .. then I buy a bigger Aperture lens ie: 50mm 1.4, but after using it.. find out "fixed" lens really not easy to use, instead adjust the lens, I need adjust my zoom by my legs ...

I found that someone suggest 70-200mm F2.8 can use for concert or indoor sport ... But I really wonder if I use this lens ...then I have to move further to get a group picture ... then there will be a lot of people head in front of my picture???

Problem 2;
I'm now trying to use manual mode, b'cos I find that taken from manual mode is more close what I want ... I normally adjust "shutter speed
" and "ISO" to avoid motion blur and lesser noise ... but I find that it was difficult, b'cos when I adjust these items ..I need bigger F ..maybe till F1.4, then the picture taken only people clear others scenery blur .. Really not easy!!

Another thing is .. always take picture few times to get accurate setting, always miss few great situation shoots .. ie: from outdoor to indoor ..

=> I using 550d, my adjective is to take picture of my children, so that can leave great memories to them when they grow up.

[prince]

It's hard to have one lens fit all.. 70-200 F2.8 on a camera with better ISO performance will let you use high enough shutter speed to capture closeup of your daughter dancing on the stage.

50mm F1.4 is good to give you nice shots covering the entire stage if you are sitting 10 rows from the stage but not good enough for closeup at the distance you'd be sitting.

Next time you are in the auditorium take some test shots of other performances before your daughter's and get your settings right.

Learn to use the Manual mode, that way you can control all 3 variables.

Post few photos with Exif info in the critique section to give you better suggestions.

[DelCan]

Welcome to photography. It is a learning curve and you've learned one of the first lessons. It can be an expensive hobby. One lens does not cover all situations. Your 50mm 1.4 is good for your group photos and the 70-200mm 2.8 (IS) is an excellent sports lens. My main lens is a 24-70L 2.8. My second most used is the 70-200.

I'm sure that others will offer their opinions....

Btw, Welcome to DPS!

(I was writing my reply while Prince posted. lol)

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by tsfatt

Dear all, I wonder whether someone facing same problem I facing ...

Problem 1;
I find that difficult to get a good shoot on my daughter when she having performance on stage ( sometime on hall, sometime on basketball field .. ) ...

1st I thought kit lens is the problem (mine is 18-135mm).. due to Aperture not big enough .. then I buy a bigger Aperture lens ie: 50mm 1.4, but after using it.. find out "fixed" lens really not easy to use, instead adjust the lens, I need adjust my zoom by my legs ...

I found that someone suggest 70-200mm F2.8 can use for concert or indoor sport ... But I really wonder if I use this lens ...then I have to move further to get a group picture ... then there will be a lot of people head in front of my picture???

Problem 2;
I'm now trying to use manual mode, b'cos I find that taken from manual mode is more close what I want ... I normally adjust "shutter speed
" and "ISO" to avoid motion blur and lesser noise ... but I find that it was difficult, b'cos when I adjust these items ..I need bigger F ..maybe till F1.4, then the picture taken only people clear others scenery blur .. Really not easy!!

Another thing is .. always take picture few times to get accurate setting, always miss few great situation shoots .. ie: from outdoor to indoor ..

=> I using 550d, my adjective is to take picture of my children, so that can leave great memories to them when they grow up.

you also have to keep in mind using a non-crop sensor lens on a crop sensor body would change the focal length... i.e. EF 70-200mm would be 100-300mm on a crop sensor, just wanted to mention that if you didn't know.

[RichardTaylor]

(1) You may need different lenses to meet different shooting needs.
When I am shooting in low light I use a couple of fast (F2) primes. A long one 35mm on a full frame camera) for the general scenes and a long one (135mm) for the close ups.

(2) If you find you have people in the front of you when shooting then shoot from the front row and/or shoot at rehearsals.


(3) If shooting in low light you can't have it all (possibly unless you are willing to shoot at very high ISO)
You may be able to position yourself where shallow DOF isn't rewally a problem. by shooting square on to a subject or using DOF creatively.

(4) If you are missing shots due to technical failures it means you may need to know how to use your camera better (including post processing) [Try using your camera in either Tv or Av (with exposure compensation if needed0] the and to use the light to to maximum advantage.

[RLucas]

Originally Posted by ChrisAdval

you also have to keep in mind using a non-crop sensor lens on a crop sensor body would change the focal length... i.e. EF 70-200mm would be 100-300mm on a crop sensor, just wanted to mention that if you didn't know.

Focal length does not change. 50mm is 50mm, no matter if on a FF body or crop.
What does change is the field of view. Nothing more. 50mm on a crop body of *1.5, would give you the same field of view as a 75mm.

[Doug Sundseth]

Originally Posted by RLucas

Focal length does not change. 50mm is 50mm, no matter if on a FF body or crop.
What does change is the field of view. Nothing more. 50mm on a crop body of *1.5, would give you the same field of view as a 75mm.

True enough, but for nearly all purposes not related to the relationship between physical aperture and f-stop (which varies with actual focal length), the difference is irrelevant. Image "compression" depends only on relative distances, not on focal length. Detail in the frame depends only on effective focal length for a given camera body.

Diffraction sharpness limiting depends on the physical size of the aperture, which means it will happen sooner on a shorter actual focal length lens. And depth of field ... is complicated enough that I'll either wing it or chimp it.

For nearly every day-to-day purpose, effective focal length is the important issue.

[RLucas]

Originally Posted by Doug Sundseth

True enough, but for nearly all purposes not related to the relationship between physical aperture and f-stop (which varies with actual focal length), the difference is irrelevant. Image "compression" depends only on relative distances, not on focal length. Detail in the frame depends only on effective focal length for a given camera body.

Diffraction sharpness limiting depends on the physical size of the aperture, which means it will happen sooner on a shorter actual focal length lens. And depth of field ... is complicated enough that I'll either wing it or chimp it.

For nearly every day-to-day purpose, effective focal length is the important issue.

Not sure if you are agreeing with me or not? That's precisely why I stated that crop only affects field of view. I wasn't speaking of compression or perspective which changes with actual distances.

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by Doug Sundseth

Image "compression" depends only on relative distances, not on focal length. ..

Diffraction sharpness limiting depends on the physical size of the aperture, which means it will happen sooner on a shorter actual focal length lens. And depth of field ... is complicated enough that I'll either wing it or chimp it.

For nearly every day-to-day purpose, effective focal length is the important issue.

Um.. No.

Image compression IS an important factor when considering a lens, as is DoF. Both of these are calculated using the real focal length, not the effective.

A 200mm lens with a 2.8 aperture has the same DoF whether it's on a FX or DX lens. However on a DX lens, the image fills more of the frame than on a FX. So in order to get your model to fill a similar space you either need to zoom out, or move further away. Both of these effect the depth of field, which may have undesireable consequences like bringing a backround into focus (This may actually be the preferred thing, in which case, a DX sensor is more desireable).

As far as image compression goes, this is a result of perspective. Perspective is only a consequence of how far the virtual glass (a 300mm lens is not usually 300mm long, so the virtual glass is in front of the actual lens. An 8mm lens is not 8mm from the sensor, making the virtual glass behind the front of the real glass) is from the sensor. Since this is defined by the distance from the sensor, not the size of the sensor, it is irrelevant whether you use an FX or a DX lens.. However, with a DX lens, when taking wider angle photos, you need a focal lengths 2/3rds that of an FX sensor, to produce the same field of view on the sensor. This may start to cause distortion in your foreground items, andvisually push the items in the distance further away.

So yes, actual focal length is HUGELY important when considerting a

[Doug Sundseth]

In general, people think that telephotos compress because they shoot them differently than wide-angle lenses. Depth compression depends only on relative distances (camera to foreground and camera to background), not on the lens used. You can see this by cropping to the same field of view when using a wide-angle and telephoto lens. The telephoto will have more detail, but the photos will be otherwise the same. (This assumes no lens distortion issues.) Since, for a given distance none of this changes with actual focal length, actual focal length is completely irrelevant, since it's effective focal length that determines framing and number of available pixels in the final photo.

DoF depends on distance, actual aperture, focal length, and photo-site size (or acceptable circle of confusion when using film). Which is an expansion on what I originally said.

I stand by my comment.